Russia and China teaming up to counter the US

[Raine1988]

Source: http://www.arcocarib.com/main/daily_connect_article/russia-and-china-teaming-up-to-counter-the-us/

The members of the security alliance ‘Shanghai Cooperation Organization’ (S.C.O.) have recently been hosting their largest joint military exercises in Russia and China. All six permanent members of the organization have participated from August 9-16. The joint military exercises, dubbed "Peace Mission 2007", demonstrate the growing importance of the S.C.O. in Central Asian geopolitical calculations.

Peace Mission 2007

Now, the S.C.O. knows it has to copy the ‘Terrorism’ rhetoric launched by the Bush administration. So, one of the main scenarios of the exercises was the retaking of a town that has been overrun by militants. Combat vehicles and troops from Russia, China and Kyrgyzstan, paratroopers from Tajikistan and Kazakhstan, and officers from Uzbekistan have all participated. Russia and China also participated with aircraft. These are serious exercises.

No link yet.

[snappyturtle]

1. Whoa! sounds serious.....are we the "terrorists"? n/t

[Amonester]

17. ummm .... good question.

Torture x Check
Habeas Corpus x Check
Destroying countries and murdering hundred of thousands innocents to steal their resources 24/7 while destroying the 'homeland' at the same time x Check

Yo think? :wow:

[tom_paine]

2. Google CSTO.

Practically speaking, and when confronted with the Modern Hitler, I don't see any other option for the rest of the world but to band together against us as we did against Hitler's Germany (back bfeore we started playing the Nazi role in 2001).

Don't get me wrong, I am not rooting for the BushPutinist Totalitarianism that characterizes Russia and China, just wishing we were not following Russia and China into Totalitarianism, when it should be the other way around.

[Raine1988]

4. wish

I wish the us instead of having a department of WAR they would make a department of PEACE,

cause come on. Here in the EU people are not talking nice about the U.S. (with all those privacy laws being misused and all that)

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. I always wondered where that "ground zero" expression, used to

describe the demolished sites of the Twin Towers, came from. I believe heard on a cable channel the other day that it was the term used to describe the rubble much of Germany had been reduced to. Kind of spooky?

[mile18blister]

32. During the cold war, it was a reference to a nuclear attack.

The area directly underneath a nuclear detonation was referred to as ground zero.

[Deja Q]

3. That's gratitude for ya.

Offshore to these countries, and all they do in return is make toxic crap and then whine about what we're doing. They have no right. (Okay, so far this is limited to China, but there's been talk of helping out Russia as well. Why the disconnect between economic and military sides? Both seem intertwined, to some extent?)

Can't the corporate sect leave all these countries alone if that's how they're going to act? (if the NAU* is for real of course, for nothing's being said in the MSM, therefore I see no reason to believe much of what is being said and if we believed everything everyone told us it'd be twice as bad)


* The NAU makes sense to me, enough sense for me to openly welcome and support it...

[endarkenment]

6. "the corporate sect " is global.

It is not a part of our nation, nor is its self interest linked to our nation. All the "corporate sect" seeks is to maximize its profits. They aren't 'offshoring': all the shores are belong to them.

[Deja Q]

9. Then why do some of America's media people still call them "American corporations"?

[endarkenment]

22. because they are paid to confuse people

and they do a good job.

[Joe Chi Minh]

31. Because the US provided the template par excellence, and with its

continuing repudiation of even social democracy within its own borders, perpetuates such "robber baron" capitalism in its most unambiguously evil form. Although, on an eschatological level, I'm sure the British corporatists will be held to be the most culpable by far, having destroyed so much of the socio-economic progress that had been made in the UK in the aftermath of WWII.

[JTFrog]

5. This comes as no surprise to me.

It was the obvious next step to stop the American empire. China has the world's largest military and Bush has set them up to become the next superpower. They will crush us financially first. Of course Russia is going to side with China. Even daddy couldn't fix that relationship for junior and even an idiot can see which side benefits Russia more. Well present resident of the Whitehouse excluded.

This is not going to be pretty.

[sarcasmo]

7. Corporate America is in for a big surprise. Those long range bomber flights Russian did last week

were not an accident, they were seeing how close they could get to American air space.

[Hardrada]

8. They should also sign a pact with Iran so an attack on one will

be an attack on all. That should take the wind out of AIPAC and the other sabre-rattlers.

[David__77]

10. Russia today has it within its power to prevent an attack on Iran.

All it takes Putin revving things up a little with a few credible threats. Russia could have prevented the war on Iraq, just as the dying Soviet Union could have prevented the previous war against Iraq and the war against Panama as well.

[hack89]

11. How?

Serious question - the Russian military is very limited in it's ability to project power beyond their borders. They have not spend serious money on their military for a couple of decades and it will take a long time before they could challenge the US.

[David__77]

12. MAD

Mutually-assured destruction. Russia doesn't have to counter the US missile-for-missile or bomber-for-bomber. It only needs its strategic nuclear arsenal. It's what kept the US from these types of adventures prior to 1989, it wasn't fear of Soviet tanks. Putin need only convince the US that he would not hesitate to use the nukes.

[hack89]

13. So Russia is willing to commit suicide for Iran?

Don't think so. It's a moot point anyway - since the US is only contemplating air and missile attacks vice a land invasion it is hard to see Russia viewing this as a strategic threat. Beside, they have more to gain by sitting back and watching the entire world condemn the US instead of also being condemned as an aggressor. There are many countries that would oppose a militarized and aggressive Russia, even if they were countering the US and Bush.

[Deja Q]

14. Exactly.

[thunder rising]

15. The game is more sophisticated than that.

The US would have been the first to go Nuke. The Russian Nukes kept the US from invading Russia, everything else was negotiable. Like, if you go here we go there. What I'm seeing today is the US went to Iraq and the Russians claimed the North Pole without firing a shot.

The real test would be when a couple of US carriers got sank after the launch of the attack and Bush could not respond against either Russia or China due to MAD. Then with a couple of carries out of the picture, China takes Taiwan. That's how the game is played on satellite interests on both sides.

I've not heard of recon flights close to Iran, China, Russia or N. Korea ... wonder why?

[hack89]

16. It's questionable whether Russia or China could sink a couple of carriers

The Russians have so few long range aviation assets available and their training and readiness is so suspect that it is hard to imagine them being able to surprise the US Navy. It takes a enormous amount training and skill to execute a long range anti-shipping strike against a carrier battle group. At the first sign of the Russians preparing a strike they would be on the receiving end of a cruise missile strike. China has no capability to attack US carriers in the ME by air. Russia and China sending submarines into the area (an area they have never operated in) would be so provocative as to being inviting the US Navy to quietly make them "disappear" just before the war started.

Why do you think that recon flights are publicized?

[JTFrog]

18. I'm not sure

we have all the details of China's military following their huge financial gain in the world. And China would cripple us financially before having to make a military move. Their force is so big that they could practically just throw bodies at us until they win. Combined with Russia, I don't see where we stand a chance without using nukes. Our forces and equipment are near the breaking point so I doubt Bush would hesitate to use them. What better way for him to bring on the Armageddon he's so eager to face?

Bush has already taken the glove and slapped the face of the world. It looks like someone is going to accept the challenge. I believe we'll be biting off far more than we can chew by making any moves against Iran.

[hack89]

19. I disagree ..

1. Since the Chinese have no way to move their forces to the ME and keep them supplied I don't see the threat.

2. The economic threat is two sided - it would also cause enormous economic and social unrest in China. When you consider that the Chinese government's only concern is to stay in power, the last thing they need is a country full of starving, unemployed workers.

3. The Chinese have never demonstrated the ability to project and sustain military power beyond their borders. I don't buy the "hidden" military capabilities argument, especially on such a huge scale. To do what you suggests requires a lot of training and equipment - even if they have the equipment stashed away somewhere out of sight (which I don't believe) we still have never seen the Chines exercise those capabilities. Do you really think they will pick war with the US to do it for the first time?

4. The Army and Marines are near the breaking point - not the Air Force or Navy. We have more then enough air and sea power to counter any Chinese move in the ME.

[JTFrog]

20. I guess it's naive of me

to think that Russia and China would combine their resources. :eyes:

The coming together of China and Russia was one of the biggest geopolitical happenings of our time. Their strengths ideally complement each other. They are both nuclear powers. The abundant energy resources of Russia ensures that China will not run out of gas in a major conflict. That's a huge advantage over the US.

Russia is also helping China modernize its defense sector. So much for arms embargo's from the UN and US. And Russia needs trade with China. They need financial assistance and manufactured goods.

Now add Iran to the equation and you get a triumvirate that is pretty formidable to the lone US. Iran is the most industrialized and the most populous nation in the Middle East. They are one of the largest oil producers in the world. It is also one of the most mountainous countries in the world, which makes it ideal for the conduct of asymmetric and guerrilla warfare against a superior adversary.

I'm just saying... we do ourselves more harm by dismissing the threat than by assuming we have the upper hand here.

[hack89]

23. What resources?

That's the point. Both China and Russia presently lack modern armies - they are trying hard to catch up and one day they might, but right now neither has the ability to project significant power beyond their borders, especially air and naval. More to the point, they have identical weakness in logistics, sea lift and power projection so there is no synergy that would result in combining their resources.

Your point about Iran is moot - the US is not considering a land invasion of Iran. It will be air and missile strikes against nuclear installation.

I am not dismissing the threat but there are real practical reason why - at this time - Russia and China have very limited means to intervene militarily if the US attacks Iran. I do not beleive for a second that either would consider nuclear strikes against the US - MAD has never stopped proxy wars before (Vietnam, Angola, etc) and it won't stop this one.

[JTFrog]

21. Also

the Chinese are said to now have the capability to keep 2 submarines in the Pacific at all times able to strike all of Asia, Europe, and North America. If armed with the maximum number of warheads per missile, their number of total deployable submarine-based nuclear warheads will rise to over 550. The minimum number likely to be on station and capable of striking the United States would be over 150.

The nuke game goes both ways. And we the people are stuck in middle at the mercy of that asshat in the whitehouse.

China alone has 1.8 million troops. I know that mobilization is a problem there. I just don't know how much of that problem could be relieved by Russia.

Can you tell I'm scared shitless by all of this? Maybe it's my fear talking and not rationality, I don't know anymore.

[hack89]

24. Why would China and Russia commit suicide for Iran?

It is not a credible threat.

BTW - take a close look at those Chinese boomer (ie ballistic missile subs) - they are based on old Russian technology. How long do you think they would survive against a modern US nuclear attack submarine?

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. When was the last update you had on the level of sophistication of

Russian materiel? I suspect you're way out of date, yourself, in your knowledge of the matter. Also regarding their logistics capabilities.

And your suggestion that the Russians would risk suicide if they intervened in any US attack on Iran sounds very lopsided to me. Do you think the wiser counsels in the US would permit a nuclear war with Russia and China because the latter sought to prevent an ongoing attack by the US on Iran?

Do you think that the European countries allowing US bases on their soil would countenance their being used as bases from which to attack Iran in such a scenario?

[hack89]

27. I am very current

it's what I do for a living. The Russians have not conducted a major out of area exercise in decades. Their nuclear submarine force is rusting at the piers. Their tanks are primarily from the 1980. Their pilots have barely the flight hours needed for basic proficiency. They have tremendous technology but very little of it is in wide spread production. They are still a conscript force - only a tiny portion of their military can even be considered to meet NATO standards. You need to look beyond the flashy hardware and look at the money available for modernization, training and maintenance. The Russian military was starved for decades and it will take decades to recover - Russia is not a rich country yet.

My point is that Russia and China have no strategic imperative to risk war with the US over air strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. They will simply wait until the dust settles and take advantage of any potential geo-political opportunities that might arise. Besides, just who are these "wiser counsels" that are advising Bush.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. Did I say they were advising Bush? Or imply that he might not be allowed a freee hand?

The military-industrial complex may currently be the most powerful Establishment in the US, but I would imagine that another older and wiser Establishment might still get the upper hand, if the prospect of a nuclear war were at issue. One can only speculate, but that's how it seems to me.

So your job also entails a knowledge of how much money is being invested by the Russians in materiel and the whole paraphernalia of war, as well as the state of a few submarines they have perhaps permitted you to know about - although yu conceded that their technology might demonstrate a high degree of sophistication?

Do you not think it possible that Western intelligence services may not be fully apprised of what's going on - given the vastness of the country? Or do our satellites more or less reveal all?

[hack89]

29. Assessing Naval capability is easy

Ships have to be on the coast. It is also very easy to determine just how many days out of port ships spend. Large scale naval exercise have to be conducted in international waters and are therefore easy to monitor. Assessing the ability for long range bombers to target and strike carrier strike groups is easy - if you don't see regular long range over water training then they don't have the ability. The Soviet Union never missed an opportunity to fly Backfires and Badgers against US carriers - it's been a decade since that has happened. You can't develop significant. large scale naval and air capabilities in secret - at some point the size and complexity of the training makes it impossible. That is why, for example, the US declassified the Stealth Fighter and B2 bomber - they couldn't be fully integrated into complex joint operations without sharing their capabilities with more planners.

Their technology is impressive in some areas (aircraft mainly) but in others they stagnated. For example, they have yet to build a naval vessel as sophisticated as an AEGIS cruiser or destroy (while we, on the other hand, are working on the follow on to AEGIS.) They have not mastered stealth. Their command and control systems are primitive by western standards. But this is all besides the point - the hardware is the least important aspect of military ability. What distinguishes first rate militaries from second rate is the amount of time and money spent on training. It is incredibly expensive but without it all that fancy hardware is useless. You can't hide realistic, large scale training that provides the capability to project power great distances. We simply haven't seen it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

30. And the size of Russia would not impose a significant limitation on

what you simply haven't seen? Interesting however.

I'm still puzzled, nevertheless, as to why you think the US would be more willing to risk a nuclear conflagration than Russia and China, particularly, as it would surely only occur after a ratcheting up of conventional hostilities with the eventual use of tactical nuclear warheads in the Middle East.

But do you not think that Bush's power base could vanish at a stroke, if the Chinese were to foreclose on the US debts to them. There are a lot of Republican patriots at the highest levels as well as ambiguous, I'm-alright-Jack Democratic politicians on Capitol Hill; and of course no-one knows how catastrophic the sequelae of such an economic eventuality might be for the US.

Hitler was only able to maintain his regime for as long as he did, by conquering and plundering the countries concerned. As someone once put it, Germany's apparently burgeoning prosperity under Hitler was, in fact, a triumph of the book-keeping Will. I think the situation in the US and the world-at-large, today, could scarcely be more different from that obtaining in pre-war Germany, or indeed more inimical to comparable designs. What's your take?

[hack89]

33. look at a map

To see the flaw in your argument. The Russian Pacific Fleet has exactly one large base, Vladivostok. It is in the far North and is a couple of hours flight time from Japan. When US patrol planes aren’t checking on them, Japanese ones are. The Russian North fleet is restricted to bases on the Kola peninsular which is close to Sweden and Norway and are under regular surveillance. The rest of the Russian coastline is frozen much of year and is not suitable for Naval bases. We don’t have to look far to find Russian training areas – they are very limited due to their geography. We know very well what the state of the Russian Navy is – this is one area where the size of the country is meaningless. You can’t train navies in the steppes.

Look at a map again and see how far a Russian naval force would have to travel to intervene in the ME – it would take almost a month to get there. Now ask your self why there aren’t Russian ships in the ME right now to help influence event. They simply don’t have the ability to send a naval force to the ME – if they could they would have by now. Because otherwise US strikes would be over before they even left their base.

I don’t think that the US is more willing to risk a nuclear war with China and Russia. I believe that Iran is not important enough to either for them to consider nuclear war. US air strikes against Iranian nuclear sites do not pose a strategic threat to Russia or China. I don’t see why tactical nukes play into the equation. They probably have more to gain strategically gain by stepping in after any strikes to take on the role of Iran’s protector.

China won’t use the economic weapon – it would be the end of communist rule. The present government made a deal with the people – you can become wealthy as long as you don’t question the party’s hold on political power. Economic expansion is directly tied to the Party’s hold on power. No trade with the US means economic collapse in China (probably global collapse too). The resulting economic and social unrest in China is the Communist Party’s worst nightmare. The global economy is exactly that – China cannot hurt the US economy without hurting themselves. And they have a lot more to lose

[Joe Chi Minh]

34. Why are you constantly obsessing about Russia's naval capabilities,

or lack thereof? They also have an army and an air force, and evidently, unlike you, I don't think Putin has spent his time neglecting to build up Russia's military capacities.

I believe that if his his mindset is defensive, it is also at least as aggressive. You look at the map of Russia and consider the vast areas, such as Siberia, from which intelligence would be rather more difficult to gather I suspect (since you didn't respond to my enquiry about satellite spying).

Nor did you respond to the point I made about the distinct possibility of your European allies being indisposed to colluding in an attack on Iran and therefore denying the use of its bases.

"I don’t see why tactical nukes play into the equation. They probably have more to gain strategically gain by stepping in after any strikes to take on the role of Iran’s protector."

Then you haven't noticed the pathological mindset of the Pentagon's finest. They tend to confuse a desire to cause the greatest pain with their strategic interests.

Games of bluff and counter-bluff are wont to get out of control and develop in ways that cannot be anticipated. As Barbara Tuchmnan so drily observed, "War is the unfolding of miscalculations."

And who do you think you are kidding, peddling that line that Bush is only interested in nullifying Iran's nuclear-weapons capacity? Or have you, yourself, been duped? So, your second point about Russia being more likely to profit from intervention after "any strikes" doesn't seem relevant, unless you believe Bush is only interested in the role of a paternal policemen. "Move along now, sonny boy. Put those WMD away."

Neither have I heard one syllable from you about Russia's alliance with China? They could put more boots on the ground than the rest of the world put together. Even if some of them only had wooden pretend guns as some of the Russians did. The Battle of Kursk, that single battle, in which the back of the German army was definitively shattered into little pieces was the greatest battle ever fought in the history of the world, and more were killed in it than in the whole of the rest of the war, probably including the Far East. "Shock and awe" doesn't begin to convey the scale of it. Don't underestimate the Russians or any foreign country.

As regards China, just how naive are you, to simply dismiss them as Communist? What's all this I've been reading about the country now being a booming industrial powerhouse? If their leaders had been as demonic as Western leaders had wanted them to be - still do -they'd have obediently allowed organised crime to take over as it had in Russia, until Putin decided patriotism shouldn't be an empty slogan and took over.

Yes, they intend to retain power. All politicians do. However, as in the case of Cuba and Castro and Venezuela and Chavez, this determination on the part of a country's leader or leaders not to yield the reins of power, sometimes coincides with what is in the the best interest of the people they govern. Not "purport to govern", not "misgovern", but "govern".

If they did relinquish the reins of power, the forces of darkness, i.e psychopaths of Western corporatism, would have their minions in place in rag time, and their countries would again be reduced to squalor and the most punitive deprivation.

Already the "market place" has caused untold suffering in China to millions, perhaps billions of Chinese, but I hope most of them realise the debt of gratitude they owe to their current leaders, for not allowing it to become a much larger version of the hell on earth created for the Russian people, proximately by the corporatist oligarchy, but ultimately by the demonic voices of Western corporatist propaganda and its infinitely corrupt authors.


"The resulting economic and social unrest in China is the Communist Party’s worst nightmare."

I strongly suspect that, as usual, you underestimate foreign leaders and their citizenries. What I agree with is that it would surely have very negative effects for all concerned, and would not be in China's interest, for all that I don't see it as the apocalyptic scenario for them you do.

"And they have a lot more to lose".

Wrong again. The people with the most worldly possessions and the greatest attachment to them, have the most to lose. Especially when they've grown used to excess, as much via the plundering of their own people as foreigners. Your government would hardly be looked upon with greater favour by your people than the Chinese government by theirs.

[hack89]

35. OK n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. The one sensible response. I don't think either's going to persuade the

other.